William Crawford <wccrawford / gmail.com> wrote:
>unknown wrote:
>> William Crawford <wccrawford / gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Only when taken out of context.  You shouldn't split my paragraphs and
>>>try to make each sentence an entire argument by itself.
>>
>> This is typical of your entire article.  Nothing was out of
>> context, and no attempt to make each sentence stand alone.
>
>If you seperate a portion of a statement from the rest of it, you have
>taken it out of context.  You can't dispute that.  It's what it means.
>You took a single sentence from a paragraph and responded only to it.

That is a dishonest statement.

>> I.e., your discussion appears to be emotional, illogical,
>> and done for the sake of argument.
>>
>> I'll opt out, as it is much the same as tickling trolls.
>
>What!?  MINE is?  My only contention is that top-posting is not
>inherently wrong.  Yours is that it is because it confuses some people
>and pisses them off.

More dishonesty.  I've never said any such thing.

>THAT is the emotional argument.  'Some people' are
>not 'all people.'  Without any facts to back that up, 'some people'
>could be 2 in a billion or 2 in 3.  We don't know.  I could easily as
>say that bottom posting confuses some people because we've had people in
>this very thread say so.

PLONK

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson            <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)                         floyd / apaflo.com